each of us knows that good planning is essential not only to our success, but also to the success of the students we teach. We also know that when students struggle, our plans must be flexible enough to change so we can appropriately address the needs of our students.
So—what is it about the development of an IEP that causes so much angst among educators? Perhaps it’s because of an especially difficult experience with writing and implementing IEPs . . . or perhaps it’s because of the paperwork . . . or maybe it is the time required of us . . . or it could be . . . well, it could quite possibly be any number of reasons. The answer can only be provided by those individuals who have been involved in the IEP process from prereferral stages through implementation stages. Since the process typically originates in the general education environment, it is safe to say that most general educators have had at least some exposure to or involvement in the development of an IEP. Consequently, it is imperative that all educators have some level of understanding of the IEP process from the prereferral stages through the implementation stages.
Every journey begins with a destination in mind, an ultimate arrival at a much desired place—be it an exotic vacation spot or simply an accomplished goal. But the arrival can never be realized without a carefully prepared plan. In fact, it is the planning of the journey that will determine the final outcome. Travelers recognize the significance of their planning and preparation for their journey. They consider their options; pay close attention to details; are flexible and able to adjust with little warning; and, most importantly, they monitor their progress until the journey’s end.
Preparing an IEP is a journey . . . albeit an educational journey . . . but a journey nonetheless. The IEP is a carefully designed plan to reach a desired destination in the academic and functional lives of individuals who qualify for services under the federal legislation, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004. Although IDEA stipulates the specific components required in every IEP document, the actual plan—the details of the individual journey—is designed and developed for each eligible individual student. The more attention that is given to the details of the plan, the better the student’s chances become for arriving at his or her ultimate destination.
Individualized Education Plans are not generic documents that can—or should—be developed using predetermined or sample goals or objectives. They are intended to be carefully designed plans that reflect what an individual student knows and can do as well as what the student must know and do to progress through the educational system. Every child who qualifies for special education under IDEA 2004 is compelled to take the IEP “journey.” If we, as educators, fail to appropriately plan that journey in collaboration with colleagues, parents and the student, then we not only fail as special educators, but the child has no hope of reaching his or her desired destination.
The intent of the following work is to offer some background and practical guidance for planning and developing effective IEPs—from start to finish. Although each IEP plots an individual journey, the overall concept and requirements are the same for all. So, let our journey begin.
Chapter 1 Individualized Education Plans and the Law IFSP, IEP, ITP, and SOP
The concept of individualized education has not always been a part of the educational system. Historically, until the passage of PL 94-142 in 1975, there was no federal stipulation that individuals with disabilities were entitled to individualized plans that delineated specific instruction designed to meet their specific academic and behavioral needs.
Litigation and Legislation—The Justification of Special Education
The court system in the United States has had a tremendous impact on the field of special education. Judicial decisions have provided both guidance and structure to an educational system that has historically been discriminatory, elitist, and exclusive in many of its practices. Students with disabilities were typically denied access to education and were, instead, institutionalized and tucked away from society’s view—a practice that was, at one time, supported by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, many of these practices were deemed unconstitutional in the late 1950s when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the desegregation of schools in Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954). Although the case focused specifically on the discrimination of black students who were denied access to the same education as white students, its ruling has had a far-reaching impact on the field of education—including the field of special education. In fact, it is safe to say that the court ruling in this case set the precedent of equal opportunity to all students—including students with special learning needs.
Many of the court cases that helped shape the field of special education as we know it today were decided prior to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, referred to more often as PL 94-142. Three Supreme Court decisions that have provided both the justification and foundation for the current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004)—known as IDEA 2004—are the following:
Diana v. State Board of Education (1970): Students must be tested in their primary language as well as in English. Students may not be placed in special education classes based on culturally biased IQ tests.Impact: Provided foundation for nondiscriminatory testing and assessment for special education.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972): States must guarantee children with intellectual disabilities (ages 6–21) a free public education. Additionally, students must be placed in the most integrated environment; parents’ rights to participate in educational decisions affecting their child were established; the practice of “child-find” was created.Impact: Forerunner to free, appropriate public education, due process rights of parents and students, and inclusion.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972): The ruling in this case established the constitutional right of children with disabilities to a public education. It also stipulated that their education must be matched to their needs—including the provision of specialized instruction.Impact: Expanded educational planning and the designing of instruction to the creation of individualized education plans.
Documented efforts to provide programs to address the needs of individuals with disabilities can be found as early as the late 1870s through the early 1970s. In fact, there are several examples of federal legislation that was designed to address the needs of children with disabilities including mental retardation (currently referred to as intellectual disability), the deaf and hard of hearing and the visually impaired. Yet, none offered the mandate of an individualized plan.
Examples of some of the more significant legislation that emerged from as far back as the late 1870s through the early 1970s include these:
PL 45-486: Act to Promote the Education of the Blind (1879). This act authorized funds for the American Printing House for the Blind.
PL 85-905: The Captioned Films Acts of 1958 supported the production and distribution of accessible films.
PL 86-158: The Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959 helped train leaders to educate children with mental retardation.
PL 87-276: The Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961 trained instructional personnel for children who were deaf and hard of hearing.
PL 89-10: The Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (1965) and PL 89-313: The State Schools Act (1965) both provided states with direct grant assistance to help educate children with disabilities.
PL 90-538: The Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 and PL 92-424: The Economic Opportunities Amendments of 1972 authorized support for exemplary early
